MSCA POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS HANDBOOK CALL 2022
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MSCA
POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS
HANDBOOK
CALL 2022
NETW ORK OF THE MARIE SKŁODOW SKA-CURIE ACTIONS
NATIONAL CONTACT POINTS
Task 3.4 Handbooks
Issued by: Agency f or Mobilit y and EU Programmes
Issued data: 08 July 2022
W ork Package Leader: InnovationAuth (IL)
MSCA-NET has received funding f rom the European Union's Research and
Innovation Program Horizon Europe under the grant agreement No 101054477MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................... 2
How to use the handbook ................................................................................................................. 2
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship essentials ..................................................................................... 3
Key tips for proposal template and layout ...................................................................................... 6
Common mistakes in PF proposal submission .............................................................................. 8
Definitions and key aspects.............................................................................................................. 9
Abstract............................................................................................................................................. 13
Part B-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 14
1. Excellence .................................................................................................................................... 14
2. Impact ....................................................................................................................................... 24
3. Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation ...................................................................... 32
Part B2 (no overall page limit applied) .......................................................................................... 36
4. CV of the researcher (indicative length: 5 pages) ................................................................ 36
5. Capacity of the Participating Organisation(s) ...................................................................... 37
6. Additional ethics information ................................................................................................. 40
7. Additional information on security screening ...................................................................... 40
8. Letter(s) of commitment from associated partners (only for hosts of outgoing phase of
Global Fellowships or non-academic placement) ........................................................................ 40
1MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Disclaimer
This is an UNOFFICIAL document prepared by MSCA-NET, the EU-funded project of
National Contact Points (NCP) for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA). This
handbook is the continuation of the MSCA handbooks prepared within the Net4Mobility+
project, originally inspired by ‘’IF Survivors Guide’’, prepared by Mr. Pierantonios
Papazoglou, former MSCA NCP from Cyprus.
The information contained in this document is intended to assist and support, in an unofficial
and practical way, anyone submitting a proposal to the MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship Call
with the deadline 14/09/2022. This document is not, by any means, a substitute of official
documents published by the European Commission, which in all cases must be considered
as binding. As such, this document is to be used in addition to the official call documents:
MSCA Work Programme 2021-2022, Guide for Applicants for Postdoctoral Fellowship 2022,
and official FAQs prepared by the Research Executive Agency (REA).
This document may not be considered in any way as deriving from and/or representing the
views and policies of the European Commission and the REA. Likewise, it may not be
considered in any way as a document deriving from and/or representing the views and
policies of the entities which are beneficiaries of the MSCA-NET project.
Please note that this document is susceptible to data corruption, unauthorized amendment
and interception by unauthorized third parties for which we accept no liability.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to remain aware of any updates and to use the latest
version of the official call documents should these be published after the publication of this
document.
This handbook may not be reproduced or sections thereof re-used without explicit permission
from the author, Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes (AMEUP).
Acknowledgements
We thank our NCPs colleagues and task members from the MSCA-NET project as well as
the EC / REA Staff, for checking the document, as well as the External Experts/ Scientists
who acted as Evaluators for their valuable insights.
How to use the handbook
This handbook should be used in conjunction with the MSCA Work Programe 2021 – 2022,
Guide for Applicants, official FAQs and proposal templates downloaded from the call
webpage on the Funding & Tender Opportunities Portal. Please note that the information
in this handbook complements the information contained in the template for Part B of the
proposal.
Information from the original Part B template is written in black Times New Roman
font.
Additional suggestions & information for each section of the proposal (part B1 and
B2) are written in blue bullets and Calibri font.
2MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Tables with the top 5 strengths and weaknesses of each sub criterion detail
evaluators’ comments from Evaluation Summary Reports.
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship essentials
Before you begin preparing your proposal, please ensure you are aware of the following facts
and comply with the requested requirements:
14th September 2022, 17:00 Brussels time
You can submit your application at any time before the deadline.
MSCA PF
Once submitted you can reopen, edit and resubmit your proposal as
DEADLINE
many times as required before the call deadline. Only the last
submitted version of the proposal will be evaluated.
Recruited researchers must comply with the following mobility rule:
they must not have resided or carried out their main activity (work,
studies, etc.) in the country of the beneficiary (for European
MOBILITY Postdoctoral Fellowships), or the host organisation for the outgoing
REQUIREMENTS phase (for Global Postdoctoral Fellowships) for more than 12 months
in the 36 months immediately before the call deadline.
This year’s mobility eligibility window is from 15th September 2019
until14th September 2022.
The researcher must be in possession of a doctoral degree or have
successfully defended their doctoral thesis before the call deadline.
RESEARCHER For European Fellowships, the researcher can be of any nationality.
REQUIREMENTS For Global Fellowships, the researcher must be a national or long-
term resident of a European Member State (MS) or Associated
Country (AC).
Maximum 8 years (full-time equivalent) from the date of award of the
(first) doctoral degree.
Time spent:
on maternity leave,
Parental leave,
compulsory national service,
not working in research;
only for the researchers who are reintegrating in Europe
RESEARCH
within European Fellowship - doing research in a non-
EXPERIENCE
associated TC (for MS /AC nationals and long-term residents
applying for European Fellowship) and
long term sick leave can be deducted for the full-time
research experience.
More detailed information is available in the Guide for Applicants,
Guidelines on the calculation of 8years research experience in
PF and PF Self-assessment tool for the calculation of the 8years
research experience.
As of 2022, proposals involving the same beneficiary and individual
researcher submitted to the previous call (2021) of MSCA Postdoctoral
Fellowships under Horizon Europe and having received a score of
RESUBMISSION less than 70% must NOT be resubmitted the 2022 year. Applicants
who scored over 70%, will be allowed to re-submit a proposal as well as
applicants that were rejected (didn’t go through the evaluation process)
under the previous year’s Postdoctoral Fellowship call.
3MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
A proposal involving the same recruiting organisation (and for Global
Postdoctoral Fellowships also the associated partner hosting the outgoing
phase) and the same individual researcher is considered a
resubmission.
This means, for example, that the researcher can (re)submit the proposal
with a different host, so they are not totally banned from applying the
following year, like for example in ERC.
If you are going to re-submit a proposal, you need to indicate re-
submission in part A of the project proposal (see the picture below),
including the previously submitted proposal reference number.
Upon fulfilling requirements for the 2022 call, make sure you have done the preparations in
relation to:
You must have a designated supervisor in a host organisation, and
have made contact with him/her and secured agreement from them to
be your supervisor in the project and to host you in the host
SUPERVISOR
organisation specified.
The supervisor will also contribute actively to the preparation and
submission of the proposal, and offer advice and guidance!
You have contacted the research office in your host organisation.
The research office will support you with the proposal. Some host
HOST
organisations require that their responsible office/unit/service for EU
ORGANISATION
grants also checks the proposal. So check if there any internal
requirements that the research office/host organisation requires.
You have read the required documents that contain the rules and
conditions for the call, the template for project proposals as well
frequently asked questions (FAQs)
Postdoctoral Fellowships Guide for Applicants 2022
REQUIRED
MSCA Work Programme 2021 – 2022
DOCUMENTS
Specific FAQs for Postdoctoral Fellowships call for
proposals 2022
MSCA-NET FAQs
Proposal template and instructions on how to fill it in
4MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
It is recommended to discuss with your host organization or
supervisor what is their preferred practice is in terms of submission of
proposal.
FAMILIARISE
The proposal must be submitted on the Funding & Tender
YOURSELF WITH
Opportunities Portal using the host organisations PIC number.
THE
You as an applicant can be listed as main contact in order to have
SUBMISSION
access to the submission account.
PROCESS
Proposal templates (Part B) can be downloaded once submission has
been started and a proposal profile is created on the Funding &
Tender Opportunities Portal.
Administrative forms (Part A)
Part A constitutes an integral part of your proposal; it is the part of the
proposal where you will be asked for certain administrative details
that will be used in the evaluation and further processing of your
proposal. For more information please refer to Standard application
form (HE MSCA PF) (pages from 1 to 24).
Narrative part B is composed of two separate PDF files (Part B1 and
Part B2), which must be uploaded as separate PDF files:
Part B1, containing a maximum of 10 (ten) A4-sized pages.
Any excess pages (i.e. numerical page 11 and beyond) will not be
available to the evaluators.
Part B1 is the core part of the proposal; it should contain the
details of proposed research according to the three evaluation
criterions:
UNDERSTAND
Section 1. Excellence
WHAT IS
Section 2. Impact
REQUIRED FOR
Section 3. Implementation
THE
SUBMISSION
Part B2, with no strict page limit for A4-sized pages containing:
Section 4. CV of the experienced researcher (5 pages)
Section 5. Capacities of the participating organisations (1 page for
the overview and 1 page for each participating organisation)
Section 6. Additional ethics information
Section 7. Additional information on security screening
Section 8. Letters of commitment of the partner organisation (GF
and non-academic placement only).
All sections of the proposal will be included in the evaluation. The
10-page limit is applied only to part B1 - sections 1 to 3.
Applicants will NOT be able to submit their proposal in the submission
system unless both parts 1 and 2 are provided in PDF format (Adobe
version 3 or higher, with embedded fonts).
You have contacted your relevant MSCA National Contact Point.
This should be the NCP in the country in which the beneficiary is
NCP SUPPORT
located. Please retrieve the contact details of your NCP here:
https://msca-net.eu/contact-points/
5MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Key tips for proposal template and layout
The following information is important to familiarise yourself with as it will make the review
process for the evaluator easier.
1. General points
Acronym: Use a self-explanatory title and a memorable acronym. Don’t forget that you
will not be able to change the acronym once you submit your proposal on the Funding
and Tenders Portal.
The acronym will be on your proposal and you will refer to it throughout your
communication and dissemination activities Ensure that the acronym is short, easy to
pronounce, easy to remember by the evaluators, and that it cannot be construed as
inappropriate or having a ‘’double meaning’’ in English or in another language.
Useful tool for creating an acronym: http://acronymcreator.net/
The proposal acronym could be placed in a header on each page as an addition to
already placed information: Call: insert call identifier] — [insert call name].
There is no cover page for the acronym & title.
For resubmissions, don’t just use Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) from the previous
submission. Review the proposal as a whole to find room for improvement. Your new
proposal is not being evaluated in comparison with last year’s.
Part B might change slightly from one year to another (e.g.,subheadings). So make sure
you are using the template of the 2022 MSCA PF-call.
Evaluators will have access to last year’s ESR after they have marked this year’s
application.
Make sure that the state-of-the art is updated.
Be aware of the overall weighting of each criterion. You need to score well in all sections
in order to be funded.
2. Proposal layout
The page size is A4, and all margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15
mm (not including any footers or headers).
The reference font for the body text of proposals is Times New Roman (Windows
platforms), Times/Times New Roman (Apple platforms) or Nimbus Roman No. 9 L
(Linux distributions).
The use of a different font for the body text is not advised and is subject to the
cumulative conditions that the font is legible and that its use does not significantly
shorten the representation of the proposal in number of pages compared to using the
reference font (for example with a view to bypassing the page limit).
The minimum font size allowed is 11 points. Standard character spacing and a
minimum of single line spacing is to be used.
6MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Use charts, diagrams, text boxes, figures to explain aspects of the project. Do not just
use blocks of text. Don’t forget to add serial numbers and titles to the charts/ diagram/
figures/ text boxes.
If needed, use tables for illustrating the core text of the proposal. These break up the
text and also save space (font size 8). Be aware that tables cannot be used to contain
the core text itself (i.e., if you insert long chunks of text in tables for the sole purpose
of saving space, REA might contact you after the deadline and ask you to transfer
your information from the table into the core text)
Ensure any colour diagrams etc. are understandable when printed (also in black and
white).
Note that text elements such as tables, headers, foot/end notes, captions, formulas, etc.
may deviate, but must be legible and not be less than 8 points.
Use highlighting where appropriate (bold, underline, italics) but don’t overdo it!
Literature references in footnotes, font size 8 or 9.
Avoid hyperlinks to information that is designed to expand the proposal. Evaluators will
be instructed to ignore, place the relevant information into your text.
3. Proposal template
Use the proposal template provided, including the exact sub-headings, because:
It matches the evaluation template and helps you to put the right information in the
right place for the evaluators to find it.
Evaluators use a “checklist” approach to marking – if the information is not in the
correct section, they will give you “zero” for that sub-criterion.
Put page numbers (format Part B - Page X of Y) in the footer.
There is no cover page or table of content.
4. Page limitations
Part B1. Sections 1, 2 and 3 together should not be longer than 10 pages.
All tables, figures, references and any other element pertaining to these sections must be
included as an integral part of these sections and they are counted towards this page
limit.
The page limit for this part of the proposal will be applied automatically.
If you attempt to upload a proposal longer than the specified page limit before the
deadline, you will receive an automatic warning and will be advised to shorten and re-
upload the proposal.
After the deadline, excess pages (in over-long proposals) will be automatically made
invisible, and therefore will not be taken into consideration by the experts
7MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
5. Proposal language
Avoid jargon.
o The majority of evaluators will not be expert in the specific subject area so write in
a style that is accessible to the non-expert using figures/tables/charts/diagrams to
illustrate where appropriate.
Explain any abbreviations the first time you use them.
Use simple clear text, make sure that it ‘reads well’.
Avoid long sentences. Avoid too much repetition. Sign-post or put reference to other
parts of the proposal if necessary.
Do not copy & paste information from other documents/websites. Instead, tailor
information to fit with your proposal. Try to make it relevant to your proposed fellowship.
Be consistent with terms used (for example, you can talk in 1st person (1, me), 3rd
person (the researcher, the ER, the fellow), use the same term throughout.
Common mistakes in PF proposal submission
After the first MSCA PF call in the Horizon Europe programme, the Research Executive
Agency (REA) provided information on the most common mistakes in the PF proposal
submission:
Wrong type of action was encoded: Global Fellowship instead of European Fellowship or
vice versa.
Associated partner for an outgoing phase of a Global Fellowship not located in a third
country (TC), but in an associated country.
Wrong applicant organisation declared: outgoing phase host or affiliation of researcher
at time of application (different from the real future host organisation).
Researcher and supervisor should NOT be the same person.
Missing abstract, panel and keywords.
Wrongly encoded non-academic placements: 50% of the encoded non-academic
placement (NAP) in PF-2021 were secondments/short visits and not non-academic
placements.
Wrongly encoded outgoing/return phase institutions.
Several applications submitted with warnings not addressed.
Most of the inconsistencies identified related to participating organizations, proposal
duration, and budget.
8MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Identified common mistakes in the budget part of the proposal:
o Wrongly encoded nations (TC instead of MS/HE AC for host beneficiary, NAPs in
TC)
o Wrong duration of different phases (EF duration, GF outgoing phase, GF return
phase, NAP)
o Wrong budgets (directly related to wrong durations)
o Wrong country correction coefficient (directly related to wrong nation encoding)
o Secondments/short visits added as associated partners in Part A
How to address and avoid these common mistakes in this PF call? You can consult
extensive presentations, including all the steps on how to encode non-academic
placement/Global Fellowship, etc.: Common mistakes in MSCA-PF proposal submission.
Definitions and key aspects
DEFINITIONS and KEY ASPECTS
Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to systems that display intelligent behaviour
by analysing their environment and taking actions – with some degree of
autonomy – to achieve specific goals.
AI-based systems can be purely software-based, acting in the virtual world
(e.g., voice assistants, image analysis software, search engines, speech
and face recognition systems) or AI can be embedded in hardware devices
Artificial
1 (e.g. advanced robots, autonomous cars, drones or Internet of Things
Intelligence
applications)
If you plan to make use of Artificial Intelligence in your project, the
evaluators will evaluate the technical robustness of the proposed
system under the appropriate criterion – (methodology aspect of the
project) it should be considered while writing the Excellence part of
the project proposal.
'Associated partners linked to a beneficiary' are organisations with an
established capital or legal link with the beneficiary, which is not limited to
the action nor specifically created for its implementation.
These entities implement action tasks described in Annex 1 of the grant
agreement, i.e. hosting and training of researchers in Postdoctoral
Associated partners Fellowships.
linked to a
beneficiary The associated partners linked to a beneficiary do not have the right to
claim unit contributions and may not employ the researcher under the
action.
In addition, they must fulfil the eligibility conditions for participation and
funding applicable to the beneficiary they are linked to.
The type of link and involvement of such entities must be clearly described
1
Definition from the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence,
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ai_hleg_definition_of_ai_18_december_1.pdf
9MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
in the proposal and will be assessed as part of the evaluation.
Examples of associated partners linked to a beneficiary that could be
relevant for PF:
1. Company A established in France holding 20% of the shares in
Company B established in Italy. However, with 20% of the shares, it
has 60% of the voting rights in company B. Therefore, company A
controls company B and both companies may be affiliated entities.
2. Company X and company Y do not control each other, but they are
both owned by company Z. They are both considered affiliated entities.
A critical risk is a plausible event or issue that could have a high adverse
impact on the ability of the project to achieve its objectives.
Level of likelihood to occur (Low/medium/high): The likelihood is the
Critical risk estimated probability that the risk will materialise even after taking account
of the mitigating measures put in place.
Level of severity (Low/medium/high): The relative seriousness of the risk
and the significance of its effect.
Community Research and Development Information Service – It is the
European Commission’s primary public repository and portal to
disseminate information on all EU-funded research projects and their
CORDIS results in the broadest sense. In this web service you can find information
(calls, projects, partners, contacts) about all European projects financed by
Directorate – General Research.
CORDIS
A report that is sent to the European Commission or REA providing
information to ensure effective monitoring of the project. There are different
types of deliverables (e.g., a report on specific activities or results, data
Deliverable management plans, other documents, ethics or security requirements,
software products, technical diagram brochures, etc.).
Deliverables must be produced at a given moment during the action. Each
work package will produce one or more deliverables during the project.
The criteria against which independent expert assess eligible proposals.
Evaluation criteria For MSCA they are related to excellence, impact, and quality and
efficiency of implementation.
Each full proposal is evaluated by at least three experts, but in some cases
more experts are needed who know about the full range of disciplines and
sectors covered by the proposal. Experts work individually. They give a
score for each criterion, with explanatory comments which is indicated in
Evaluation process Evaluation summary report. After carrying out an individual evaluation, an
for MSCA expert will join other experts who have evaluated the same proposal in a
consensus group, to agree on a common position, including comments
and scores. Before notifying coordinators of the final evaluation results, the
Commission reviews the results of the experts’ evaluation and puts
together the final ranking list.
An evaluation summary report is the assessment of a particular proposal
ESR – Evaluation following evaluation by independent experts. The ESR contains both
summary report comments and scores for each criterion.
The grant agreement is the legal instrument that provides for Commission
GA – Grant
funding of a successful proposal.
Agreement
Grant Agreement preparation procedure
Impacts Wider long-term effects on society (including the environment), the
10MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
economy and science, enabled by the outcomes of R&I investments (long
term). Impacts generally occur sometime after the end of the project. For
this call Impacts refers to subsection 2.3
Example: The deployment of the advanced forecasting system enables
each airport to increase maximum passenger capacity by 15% and
passenger average throughput by 10%, leading to a 28% reduction in
infrastructure expansion costs.
Control points in the project helping to chart progress. Milestones may
correspond to the achievement of a key result, allowing the next phase of
the work to begin. They may also be needed at intermediary points so that,
Milestone if problems have arisen, corrective measures can be taken. A milestone
may be a critical decision point in the project where, for example, the
consortium must decide which of several technologies to adopt for further
development. The achievement of a milestone should be verifiable.
MSCA green charter is a code of good practice for individuals and
institutions that are in receipt of MSCA funding. It promotes the sustainable
implementation of research activities. The goal of the green charter is to
MSCA Green Charter encourage sustainable thinking in research management. This document
can give you some ideas while writing the implementation section of your
project proposal. More information is available on https://marie-
sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/about-msca/msca-green-charter.
The goals of the work performed within the project, in terms of its research
and innovation content. This will be translated into the project’s results.
Objectives These may range from tackling specific research questions,
demonstrating the feasibility of an innovation, sharing knowledge
among stakeholders on specific issues. These points could be
considered in each and every proposal.
The nature of the objectives will depend on the type of action, and the
scope of the topic.
The expected effects, over the medium term, of projects supported under a
given topic. The results of a project should contribute to these outcomes,
fostered in particular by the dissemination and exploitation measures. This
may include the uptake, diffusion, deployment, and/or use of the project’s
Outcomes results by direct target groups. Outcomes generally occur during or shortly
after the end of the project.
Example: 9 European airports adopt the advanced forecasting system
demonstrated during the project.
Open science is an approach based on open cooperative work and
systematic sharing of knowledge and tools as early and widely as possible
in the process. Open science practices include early and open sharing of
research (for example through pre-registration, registered reports, pre-
prints, or crowd-sourcing); research output management; measures to
Open Science ensure reproducibility of research outputs; providing open access to
research outputs (such as publications, data, software, models, algorithms,
and workflows); participation in open peer-review; and involving all
relevant knowledge actors including citizens, civil society and end users in
the co-creation of R&I agendas and contents (such as citizen science).
Results generated by the action to which access can be given in the form
Research output
of scientific publications, data or other engineered outcomes and
11MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
processes such as software, algorithms, protocols and electronic
notebooks.
What is generated during the project implementation? This may include,
for example, know-how, innovative solutions, algorithms, proof of
feasibility, new business models, policy recommendations, guidelines,
prototypes, demonstrators, databases and datasets, trained researchers,
new infrastructures, networks, etc. Most project results (inventions,
Results scientific works, etc.) are ‘intellectual property’, which may, if appropriate,
be protected by formal ‘intellectual property rights’.
Example: Successful large-scale demonstrator: trial with 3 airports of an
advanced forecasting system for proactive airport passenger flow
management.
Employers and/or funders should ensure that a person is clearly identified
to whom researchers can refer for the performance of their professional
duties, and should inform the researchers accordingly.
Such arrangements should clearly define that the proposed supervisors
are sufficiently expert in supervising research, have the time, knowledge,
Supervision experience, expertise and commitment to be able to offer the postdoctoral
researcher appropriate support and provide for the necessary progress
and review procedures, as well as the necessary feedback mechanisms.
While the MSCA Guidelines on Supervision are non-binding, funded-
projects are strongly encouraged to take them into account.
The non-academic placement is not a secondment.
An optional secondment is a temporary transfer to another entity in any
sector, anywhere in the world at any time during the action, typically to
perform part of the research or to gain experience. Secondments do not
have a separate budget and can take place for up to a maximum of one
third of the standard duration of the project.
Non-academic placements also involve mobility to another entity, located
in an EU member state or associated country, but can only take place to
an organisation in the non-academic sector and after the end of the regular
duration of the project. Non-academic placements have a dedicated
budget.
Both secondments and placements are expected to include supervision,
to bring a clear added value to the research proposal, and should be
Secondments vs covered by the employment contract with the beneficiary. Further
Non-academic information can be found in the guide for applicants.
placement
The non-academic sector placement must be encoded in part A of the
proposal and described in part B. In part A of the submission wizard, the
name of the associated partner where the non-academic placement will
take place must be encoded as a participating organisation ("associated
partner") in the tab "participants". The associated partner needs to have a
Personal Identification Code (PIC).
In Part B1 (under sub-criterion 1.3 and 3.2), the relevance and added-
value of the non-academic placement period will be assessed by the
evaluators and may therefore impact the final score awarded to the
proposal.
In Part B2, the non-academic placement host must provide an up-to-date
letter of commitment, to be submitted with the application, confirming their
precise role and active participation in the proposal.
12MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Secondment hosts should not be encoded as associated partners; this is
only intended for non-academic placement hosts and associated partners
for the outgoing phase for Global Fellowships. More clarifications about the
difference between optional secondments and placements can be
found here.
Abstract
The abstract is a short description of your project in maximum 2000 characters including
spaces.
The main elements are:
o 1-2 sentences that put your project into context
o Your research objective
o Background information on the state of the art
o Specific aims and details of your project plan
Abstracts in part A should not contain sensitive information, as they will be made publicly
available if the project is retained for funding.
The abstract and keywords are used to select the evaluators. Description on how to
select the keywords is available on a specific FAQ.
An abstract should ‘sell’ your project and be understandable to the non-expert.
It should communicate the importance, impact and timeliness of the project and also
convince the evaluator that you should be funded to carry it out.
It should NOT be the usual scientific abstract.
See ideas of existing projects in CORDIS (using filters Projects – H2020 – Marie
Sklodowska-Curie actions Individual Fellowship)
13MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Part B-1
1. Excellence
1.1 Quality and pertinence of the project’s research and innovation objectives (and the
extent to which they are ambitious, and go beyond the state of the art)
At a minimum, address the following aspects:
Describe the quality and pertinence of the R&I objectives; are the objectives
measurable and verifiable? Are they realistically achievable?
Explain the research context of your project and introduce your project’s subject.
Explain the importance of the research being carried out and how it addresses a
challenge/priority at a global/European level.
Describe the specific research objectives (ROs) of the project. These should give the
evaluator an insight into what research will be carried out during the project and should be
feasible.
Each research objective should correspond to the research work packages. For example,
objective 1 is the objective for research WP 1. Number the objectives O1, O2, O3 etc. and
include the corresponding work package in brackets at the end of each objective (WP1).
Describe how your project goes beyond the state-of-the-art, and the extent to which
the proposed work is ambitious.
Break the state-of-the-art (SOA) into separate short paragraphs, each focussing on a specific
research objective of the project.
For each paragraph, briefly outline the current level of knowledge in the research area and
highlight how the project will progress the research ‘beyond the current state-of-the-art’.
Use up-to-date references and ask your supervisor for assistance.
If there is SOA work being carried out by your supervisor or by you then mention this here
(as it demonstrates your excellence and adequacy to carry out the research).
You could finish each paragraph with a bold /text-box statement of how the project is
progressing the area beyond the current state-of-the-art.
STRENGHTS FROM THE EVALATION SUMMARY REPORTS
1. The proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the current state of the art. The
hypothesis and objectives are highly innovative and realistic, and the proposed work is
expected to advance this research field substantially.
2. The research objectives are laid out in a clear and concise way and are founded very
well in the presented background. The objectives are innovative, relevant, realistically
achievable, measurable, verifiable and address a matter of high importance
3. This is a very timely proposal, which addresses an important theme in a very good and
relevant way.
4. The proposal is ambitious and innovative, with intersectoral objectives promising
relevant outputs.
5. The state of the art is very well documented with up-to-date references and it supports
well the scientific objectives of the proposal.
WEAKNESSES FROM THE EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORTS
1. The originality and innovation potential of the proposal is not outlined in a sufficiently
convincing and detailed manner, particularly as the background on recent developments in
14MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
the field of the proposal is not presented in sufficient detail to support the working
hypotheses.
2. The proposal lacks a clear identification of measurable criteria for verifying the fulfilment
of the proposed objectives.
3. The proposal seems a bit overambitious in some parts and displays certain lack of focus
by including a too large variety of different approaches.
4. In general, the ideas are not structured clearly or concretely enough. Almost every
section reads like a collection of buzz words and unclarified words with details that do not
hang together sufficiently, making it difficult to understand what exactly is proposed, and to
assess quality. For instance, there are sections focusing more on implementation than on
quality/pertinence and innovation objectives.
5. The proposal does not describe in sufficient detail the degree of innovation, as
numerous high ranking groups worldwide pursue similar approaches in the field.
6. The state-of-the-art description is not convincing. It is not sufficiently elaborated to
establish the level of innovation in the proposed work.
1.2 Soundness of the proposed methodology (including interdisciplinary approaches,
consideration of the gender dimension and other diversity aspects if relevant for the
research project, and the quality of open science practices)
At a minimum, address the following aspects:
Overall methodology: Describe and explain the overall methodology, including the
concepts, models and assumptions that underpin your work. Explain how this will
enable you to deliver your project’s objectives. Refer to any important challenges you
may have identified in the chosen methodology and how you intend to overcome
them.
In this section you should describe how the research project will be carried out. Break this
section up into short paragraphs/bullet points to describe the steps/methods you will take
to achieve the research objectives proposed (put in brackets the research objective and
work package it relates to). At the implementation part, the workplan (specific tasks)
relating to the research WP will be described in detail in section 3.1.
Highlight the experiments, blocks of work to carry out, techniques and equipment that will
be used especially in a novel way. If there will be new analysis, concept, methods
implemented – mention and highlight it (bold).
If a secondment, non-academic placement or short visits are included, be specific about why
they are needed in terms of the work being carried out (use of equipment, access to data
etc).
Be careful here as you do not have space to describe everything in detail as the proposal is
10 pages long but you must give enough detail to show how the research will be conducted.
Integration of methods and disciplines to pursue the objectives: Explain how expertise
and methods from different disciplines will be brought together and integrated in
pursuit of your objectives. If you consider that an inter-disciplinary2 approach is
unnecessary in the context of the proposed work, please provide a justification.
2
Interdisciplinarity means the integration of information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts or
theories from two or more scientific disciplines.
15MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Interdisciplinarity means the integration of information, data, techniques, tools,
perspectives, concepts or theories from two or more scientific disciplines. These aspects will
be assessed during the evaluation. The term discipline refers to the first level of MSCA
keywords. A list of MSCA keywords is available on:
https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/MSCA%20Keywords.pdf
State if you are working with a mix of disciplines and demonstrate how the research being
carried out goes beyond the discipline that is strictly yours – explain the synergy between
disciplines and do not just list them.
Highlight the key interdisciplinary aspect of your proposal (methodology, supervision,
dissemination, etc.)
If you consider that an inter-disciplinary approach does not apply, provide a justification.
Gender dimension and other diversity aspects: Describe how the gender dimension
and other diversity aspects are taken into account in the project’s research and
innovation content. If you do not consider such a gender dimension to be relevant in
your project, please provide a justification.
Remember that that this question relates to the content of the planned research
and innovation activities, and not to gender balance in the teams in charge of
carrying out the project.
Sex, gender and diversity analysis refers to biological characteristics and
social/cultural factors respectively. For guidance on methods of sex / gender
analysis and the issues to be taken into account, please refer to this page.
In other words, you should take into account biological characteristics (sex) and
social/cultural features (gender) in your research. Ask yourself the following questions:
o Does it matter whether test persons are male or female?
o Will the results affect male and females in the same way?
o Does the methodology ensure that (possible) gender differences will be investigated:
that sex/gender differentiated data will be collected and analysed throughout the
research cycle?
o Are questionnaires, surveys, focus groups, etc. designed to unravel potentially relevant
sex and/or gender differences in your data?
o Are the groups involved in the project (e.g. samples, testing groups) gender-balanced?
Note that it is also possible to address the gender dimension through training and
communication/dissemination activities.
More questions on gender aspect in research are available on
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/17c073_22d7b327acc8434a91dbceba1898e7d2.pdf
Apart from gender dimension in research, and if applicable, include other diversity aspects to
better address the multiple and interacting factors of inequality experienced by R&I actors,
such as other social categories and identities such as ethnicity and race (including migrants
and refugees), social class and wealth, gender identity, and sexual orientation (LGBTI+ issues)
and disability.
An example of a useful resource listing what could be considered under the other diversity
aspects, or new intersectional approach can be found in publication Gender equality and
diversity in R&I. If your research is not concerned by gender issues or other diversity aspects
you should clearly explain why.
Open science practices: Describe how appropriate open science practices are
implemented as an integral part of the proposed methodology. Show how the choice of
practices and their implementation is adapted to the nature of your work in a way that
16MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
will increase the chances of the project delivering on its objectives [e.g. up to 1/2
page, including research data management]. If you believe that none of these
practices are appropriate for your project, please provide a justification here.
You have to provide concrete information on how you plan to comply with the mandatory
open science practices. Be concrete because you have up to half a page for this!
Mandatory OS practice
Open access to scientific publications under the conditions required by the grant agreement
(GA);
responsible management of research data in line with the FAIR principles of ‘findability’,
‘accessibility’, ‘interoperability’ and ‘reusability’,
information about the research outputs/tools/instruments needed to validate the conclusions
of scientific publications or to validate/re-use research data;
digital or physical access to the results needed to validate the conclusions of scientific
publications, unless exceptions apply;
in cases of public emergency, if requested by the granting authority, immediate open access to
all research outputs under open licenses or access under fair and reasonable conditions to
legal entities that need the research outputs to address the public emergency
You need to show how OS implementation is adapted to the nature of your work, therefore
increasing the chances of the project delivering on its objectives
In addressing OS practice take into account:
Early and open sharing: specific information of what type of early and open sharing is
appropriate (if applicable) for your discipline and project, such as preprints or
preregistration/registration reports, and which platforms you plan to use.
Reproducibility of research outputs: you should outline the measures planned in the project
that tend to increase reproducibility. Such measures may already be interweaved/mentioned
in other parts of the methodology of a proposal (such as transparent research design, the
robustness of statistical analyses, addressing negative results, etc.) or in mandatory/non-
mandatory open science practices (e.g. the Data Management Plan, early sharing through
preregistration and preprints, open access to software, workflows, tools, etc.).
Open access (OA): Offer specific information on how you will meet the OA requirements,
that is deposition and immediate open access to publications and OA to data through a
trusted repository, and under open licenses. You may elaborate on the publishing venues
that you will use and/or trusted repository/repositories through which OA to publication and
research data will be provided.
OA should be “as open as possible and as closed as necessary”, remaining “open” in order
to foster the accessibility, reusability and to accelerate research, but at the same time
information should be “closed” to safeguard the privacy of the subjects (protection of the
private data), protecting results that can reasonably be expected to be commercially or
industrially exploited, keeping confidentiality in connection with security issues.
As a general rule, OA to other research outputs such as software, models, algorithms,
workflows, protocols, simulations, electronic notebooks and others is not required but
17MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
strongly recommended. Access to ‘physical’ results like cell lines, bio specimens, compounds,
materials, etc. is also strongly encouraged.
Open peer review: Anytime it is possible, you are invited to prefer open peer review for your
publications over traditional (‘blind’ or ‘closed’) peer review. When the case, you should
provide specific information regarding the publishing venues you envisage to make use of,
and highlight the venues that would qualify as providing open peer review
Citizen, civil society and end-user engagement: Provide clear and succinct information on
how citizen, civil society and end-user engagement will be implemented in your project,
where/if appropriate – methodological approaches depending of the type of research
activities:
co-design activities (such as workshops, focus groups or other means to develop R&I
agendas, roadmaps and policies)
co-creation activities (involving citizens and/or end-users directly in the development
of new knowledge or innovation, for instance through citizen science and user-led
innovation);
co-assessment activities (such as assisting in the monitoring, evaluation and feedback
to governance of a project, projects, policies or programmes on an iterative or even
continual basis).
Recommendation is that you provide OA to research outputs beyond publications and data
(software tools, models, apps, etc.) and share them as early and openly as possible –
providing guidance for potentially interested users
A clear explanation of how they will adopt recommended practices, as appropriate for
projects, will result in a higher evaluation score
Recommended OS practice
Open science practices beyond the mandatory ones, such as involving all relevant knowledge
actors, including citizens, early and open sharing of research, output management beyond
research data, open peer-review, preregistration of research, (i.e., specifying your research
plan in advance of your RESEARCH and submitting it to a registry).
Please note that this does not refer to outreach actions that may be planned as part of
the communication, dissemination and exploitation activities. These aspects should
instead be described below under ‘Impact’.
Research data management and management of other research outputs: Applicants
generating/collecting data and/or other research outputs (except for publications)
during the project must explain how the data will be managed in line with the FAIR
principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).
Research data management (RDM) is the process within the research lifecycle that includes the
data collection or acquisition, organisation, curation, storage, (long-term) preservation, security,
quality assurance, allocation of persistent identifiers (PIDs), provision of metadata in line with
disciplinary requirements, licencing, and rules and procedures for sharing of data.
RDM is an essential element in any project that generates, collects or re-uses data
18MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
If you expect to generate or reuse data and/or other research outputs (except for
publications), you are required to outline in a maximum of 1/2page (including OS practices)
how these will be managed.
If using the European open science cloud (EOSC) federated repositories, you should explicitly
discuss the use of such repositories in the proposal.
Show best practice in RDM – including provisions required to be in place to ensure that data
is managed responsibly (e.g. the right venue is chosen for deposition,-legal provisions such as
general data protection regulation (GDPR) are respected, etc.).
Data management should be in line with the FAIR principles, to ensure that researchers can
find, access and re-use each other’s data, maximising the effectiveness and reproducibility of
the research undertaken.
RDM, in line with the FAIR principles is a requirement that should be carried out regardless
of whether the data generated and re-used in the project is intended to be openly
accessible, or if access restrictions are foreseen.
FAIR data is not equivalent to open data (publicly available to everyone to access and reuse).
Data can, and should be FAIR, even when access is restricted.
More details should be provided in data management plan (DMP), which is not required at
submission stage but it is mandatory deliverable. In the text explain that further details will
be provided in DMP.
For guidance on open science practices and research data management, please refer
to the relevant section of the HE Programme Guide on the Funding & Tenders Portal.
STRENGHTS FROM THE EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORTS
1.The methodology is generally sound, comprehensive, and clear. The use of new
technologies is mainly justified and consistent with the research objectives. Most
methodological challenges are clearly recognized and detailed fall back strategies are
presented. Both experimental and computational aspects are described in detail, and the
approach is overall credible and well-formulated.
2. The project employs relevant techniques and methods from interdisciplinary fields, which
are brought together smartly and well integrated.
3. The gender dimension and other diversity aspects are very well identified, and gender,
age and ethnicity will be incorporated in the proposed models.
4. The proposed open science practices are convincing and well described, considering
FAIR principles for data, models and papers.
5. Open science practices are well addressed, and concrete actions and protocols are
described to comply, including making the data accessible through public databases.
WEAKNESSES FROM THE EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORTS
1. The proposed methodology is supported by previous work of the researcher. While the
methodology is explained in general terms and is mostly a descriptive one, it lacks some
information on the concrete methods to be used.
2. The proposal fails to fully justify the value of interviews and questionnaires for the
research (e.g., it does not adequately address how representability will be achieved).
3. The proposal insufficiently addresses how specific concepts and assumptions from
different disciplines named as relevant would be deployed to ensure an interdisciplinary
approach.
4. The gender dimension and other diversity aspects could be relevant for the research.
However, these have not been taken into account sufficiently in the proposal’s research
and innovation content and an insufficient justification has been provided.
5. Significant dimensions of intersectional subjectivity and inequality, such as class and
19MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
race, are not addressed sufficiently in the conceptual foundation of the proposal’s
approach.
6. Open science practices are not sufficiently clarified; the analysis of reproducibility and
replicability of results, is not satisfactorily discussed.
1.3 Quality of the supervision, training and of the two-way transfer of knowledge
between the researcher and the host
At a minimum, address the following aspects:
Describe the qualifications and experience of the supervisor(s). Provide information
regarding the supervisors' level of experience on the research topic proposed and their
track record of work, including main international collaborations, as well as the level
of experience in supervising/training, especially at advanced level (i.e. PhD and
postdoctoral researchers).
Provide a few sentences on supervisor’s key achievements: years of experience in the field,
examples of awards, international, intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration,
examples of the coordinated projects and number of publications (most important journals,
H-Index..), patents (especially if they are closely connected to your research – remember the
state-of-the art), number of supervised researchers (is there any success story – are the
supervised researchers now in the leading positions..).
You should have a suitably qualified supervisor who is close to your research field. Highlight
in particular if the supervisor has an international career with experience in implementing EU
projects (especially ones involving postdocs).
If you are having a co-supervisor, shortly explain his/her added value. Co-supervisors can be
members of the same research team as the main supervisor. Co-supervision is encouraged,
but the respective roles of both co-supervisors should be clearly defined and
complementary.
If applicable, explain the value of the supervisor during the secondments, non-academic
placement and during outgoing phase of the Global Fellowship.
Be very brief with all relevant information – you can provide more information in table B2 in
section 5!
Planned training activities for the researcher (scientific aspects,
management/organisation, horizontal and key transferrable skills...).
Briefly mention career development plan (CDP) and that you will develop it with your
supervisor.
Describe your needs and how you want your career to develop.
Identify your weaknesses in your current set of skills and find trainings and opportunities at
the hosting institution that will fit your needs.
For more information you can use EURAXESS career development tools:
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/euraxess_career_handbook.pdf
For the training subsection, after identifying a set of skills that are needed, describe how you
will acquire these new skills and the relevance of the additional scientific and transferable skills
training:
20MSCA POSTDOCTORAL F ELLOW SHIP HANDBOOK 2022
Scientific skills
• Which new techniques and methods will be acquired?
• How will they be acquired? Through research or through specific courses? Ask your
supervisor for suggestions on potential trainings
• Training on “Research integrity “, “open science “, digital techniques, tools, new techniques
Transferable skills
• Teaching as well as tutoring/mentoring of students and doctoral candidates (
leadership/communication skills)
• Project/financial/organisational management (project planning, organisation of a
conference)
• Development and organisation of follow-up projects (fundraising, proposal writing)
• Acquisition/development of abilities in working in an international environment
(communication, building networks)
• Business thinking (through your own project)
• Handling intellectual property rights (IPR), training in patent law, course in gender awareness
Highlight the complementarity between your profile, the one of your supervisor and the
expertise of your host organisation.
From the transfer of knowledge, it should be clear why your host institution is the perfect
match regarding your scientific and transferable needs.
Adjust training and transfer of knowledge to the specific needs of you as a researcher and
the host organisation.
“Doing more with less “- concentrate on a few training activities you really need instead of
trying to be trained in everything an unrealistic plan could be identified as a weakness.
What new knowledge will you gain during the fellowship and how it will be acquired (staff
development programmes, workshops, seminars, online courses, internal meetings).
Outline previously acquired knowledge and skills that you will transfer to organisation. Ask
yourself how can your expertise promote the host institution?
Detail how any scientific (unique) expertise can be transferred to the host organisation e.g.
via teaching and/or mentoring undergraduates and PhD students’
Demonstrate, if relevant, how you will be providing new network opportunities for the host
institution.
For European Fellowships: two-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and
host organisation.
For Global Fellowships: three-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher, host
organisation, and associated partner for outgoing phase.
For Global Fellowships explain how the newly acquired skills will be transferred back to the
European host institution and how they will be integrated e.g., additional trainings for the
research team, new methods and techniques that you will use in your research.
Rationale and added-value of the non-academic placement (if applicable).
Highlight intersectoral – interdisciplinary training during the placement/secondment – why is
it important (for example testing technical development during the fellowship), when will it
be planned and what knowledge will be acquired.
21You can also read
